Trade Union Recognition in Maharashtra: A Legal Analysis

The Edifice of Recognition: An Analysis of Trade Union Recognition under Maharashtra Law

Introduction

The recognition of trade unions is a cornerstone of mature industrial relations, providing a formal mechanism for collective bargaining and the representation of workmen's interests. In the State of Maharashtra, the legal framework for such recognition is primarily enshrined in the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "MRTU & PULP Act" or "the Act"). This Act was a legislative response to the need for a structured system to identify representative unions and to prevent certain unfair labour practices by both employers and trade unions, thereby fostering industrial peace and harmony.[1] As observed by the Bombay High Court, trade unions play an important role in national problems and socio-economic activities, extending beyond mere wage negotiations to the broader lives of citizens.[2] This article undertakes a scholarly analysis of the legal principles, statutory provisions, and judicial interpretations governing the recognition of trade unions in Maharashtra, drawing significantly from the MRTU & PULP Act and pertinent case law.

Historical and Legislative Context

Prior to the enactment of the MRTU & PULP Act in 1972, the industrial relations landscape in Maharashtra was governed by multiple statutes. The Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (BIR Act) applied to certain notified industries and included provisions for the recognition of representative unions.[2], [3] However, industries not covered by the BIR Act fell under the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act), a central legislation which, at the time, lacked specific provisions for union recognition or the prevention of unfair labour practices.[3], [4] This disparity and the absence of a comprehensive mechanism for union recognition in all sectors led to dissatisfaction and highlighted a lacuna in the existing legal framework.[4]

The MRTU & PULP Act was enacted, as its preamble elucidates, "to provide for the recognition of trade unions for facilitating collective bargaining for certain undertakings; to state their rights and obligations; ... to define and provide for the prevention of certain unfair labour practices; to constitute courts (as independent machinery) for carrying out the purposes of according recognition to trade unions and for enforcing provisions relating to unfair practices..."[5] The Act aimed to bring uniformity and stability to industrial relations by establishing a clear process for identifying a single bargaining agent for an undertaking, thereby streamlining negotiations and reducing inter-union rivalry.

The Framework for Recognition under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971

Chapter III of the MRTU & PULP Act specifically deals with the recognition of unions. The provisions apply to every undertaking wherein 50 or more employees are employed or were employed on any day of the preceding 12 months.[6]

Definition of "Union"

Section 3(17) of the Act defines a "union" as "a trade union of employees which is registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926."[6] This underscores the foundational requirement that any entity seeking recognition must first be a registered trade union under the central legislation governing trade unions.

Application for Recognition (Section 11)

Section 11 of the MRTU & PULP Act outlines the procedure for a union to apply for recognition. An application for recognition is to be made to the Industrial Court.[6] A crucial eligibility criterion, as stipulated in Section 11(1), is that the applicant union must have, for the whole of the period of six calendar months immediately preceding the calendar month in which it makes the application, a membership of not less than thirty per cent of the total number of employees employed in the undertaking.[6], [7]

Procedure for Granting Recognition (Section 12)

Upon receipt of an application under Section 11, the Industrial Court is mandated by Section 12 to follow a specific procedure. This includes displaying a notice of the application, inviting objections from other unions, employers, and affected employees.[6] The Industrial Court, after considering objections and satisfying itself that the applicant union meets the requisite conditions for registration (including the membership threshold) and complies with the conditions specified in Section 19 of the Act, shall grant recognition and issue a certificate.[6]

Section 19 lays down several conditions for recognition, including requirements related to the union's constitution, such as ensuring membership is open to all employees, holding executive committee meetings at prescribed intervals, and having its accounts audited by a government-appointed auditor. The Supreme Court in Forbes Forbes Campbell & Co., Ltd. v. Engineering Mazdoor Sabha emphasized the necessity of strict adherence to these conditions, particularly those outlined in Form A (the prescribed application form), which reflects the requirements of Section 19.[8] The Court stressed that these are not mere formalities but essential criteria for ensuring the union's operational effectiveness and accountability.[8]

Furthermore, the Industrial Court is proscribed from granting recognition if it is satisfied that the union is disqualified for reasons mentioned under Sections 12(5) (e.g., if its recognition was cancelled within the preceding two years) or 12(6) (if the union is not being conducted bona fide in the interests of employees but for extraneous considerations), or if it does not satisfy the conditions in Section 19.[9]

Strict Adherence to Statutory Procedure

The judiciary has consistently underscored the mandatory nature of the procedures laid down in the MRTU & PULP Act for union recognition. In the landmark case of Automobile Products Of India Employees' Union v. Association Of Engineering Workers, Bombay And Others, the Supreme Court held that the method of using a secret ballot to determine the majority union, when not prescribed by the Act, was prima facie illegal, even if consented to by rival unions.[10] The Court reasoned that the Act was meticulously crafted to ensure stability in industrial relations and that statutory compliance cannot be overridden by consensual agreements.[10] This principle was reiterated in Association Of Chemical Workers v. S.D Rane And Others, where the Court affirmed that consent does not cure the illegality of substituting a procedure not prescribed under the Act.[11] The recognition or derecognition of a union is considered a matter of utmost importance not only to the contesting unions and their members but also to all workmen in the undertaking, the industry, and society in general.[9]

Rights of Recognised and Other Unions

The MRTU & PULP Act confers distinct rights upon recognised unions, primarily to act as the sole bargaining agent in disputes concerning the undertaking. However, the Act also acknowledges certain rights for unrecognised unions.

Section 22(ii) of the Act, for instance, pertains to the right of an employee to be represented in any domestic or departmental inquiry by an officer, member of office bearer of the union of which he is a member. The interpretation of this section has been subject to judicial scrutiny, with courts examining the extent of representation rights for members of unrecognised unions.[12] The Supreme Court has upheld limitations on such representation if prescribed by standing orders, balancing the employee's right to representation with the structured framework of the Act.[13]

Regarding the locus standi to file complaints, Section 28(1) of the Act allows "any union" to file a complaint relating to unfair labour practices. The Bombay High Court in M/S PRABHAT DAIRY LTD. AND ORS v. KONKAN SHRAMIK SANGH clarified that the words "any union" in this context mean a union of employees employed in the particular industry concerned and not any union whatsoever, emphasizing the need for a direct nexus between the union and the industry.[14]

In Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation And Another v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana, the Supreme Court addressed the maintainability of complaints filed by an unrecognized union alleging unfair labour practices under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act (employing individuals as temporaries to deprive them of permanency benefits). While noting technical issues with maintainability by an unrecognized union for certain ULPs, the Court, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, extended benefits to ensure justice, highlighting a pragmatic approach to worker welfare even when procedural limitations for unrecognized unions exist.[15]

Cancellation of Recognition (Section 13)

Section 13 of the MRTU & PULP Act provides for the cancellation of recognition granted to a union. An application for cancellation can be made by another union, the employer, or the State Government to the Industrial Court. Grounds for cancellation include, inter alia, that the union's membership has fallen below the minimum required percentage for a continuous period, that it has failed to observe any of the conditions specified in Section 19, or that it has instigated an illegal strike. The Industrial Court conducts an inquiry before deciding on cancellation.[7]

Judicial Scrutiny and Interpretation

The Industrial Courts and higher judiciary play a crucial role in interpreting and enforcing the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act, ensuring that the processes of recognition and de-recognition are conducted fairly and in accordance with the statutory mandate.

A significant prerequisite for invoking the Act, including for matters related to union activities or complaints of unfair labour practices, is the establishment of an employer-employee relationship. The Supreme Court in Vividh Kamgar Sabha v. Kalyani Steels Ltd. And Another[16] and General Labour Union (Red Flag), Bombay v. Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Printing Co. Ltd. And Others[17] held that if there is a dispute as to whether the individuals concerned are employees of the company, that dispute must first be resolved in an appropriate forum. Only after their status as workmen is established can a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act be maintained.

The courts also scrutinize the bona fides of actions taken by employers that might affect union activities. For example, in General Labour Union (Red Flag) Bombay v. B.V Chavan And Others, concerning alleged unfair labour practices of imposing a lockout, the Supreme Court directed that the Industrial Court must determine whether a purported closure of an industrial activity was bona fide or a mere pretence to terminate workmen's services.[18]

Unfair Labour Practices in the Context of Union Activities

While this article primarily focuses on union recognition, it is pertinent to note that the MRTU & PULP Act extensively deals with unfair labour practices (ULPs) listed in Schedules II, III, and IV. Certain ULPs by employers, such as those under Schedule II (e.g., interfering with employees' right to organize, threatening employees with discharge for union activity) or Schedule IV (e.g., discharging or dismissing an employee in utter disregard of principles of natural justice in a domestic enquiry - Item 1(f)[19]), can significantly impact trade union formation, functioning, and the environment for seeking recognition.

Conclusion

The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, provides a comprehensive legal architecture for the recognition of trade unions in Maharashtra. It establishes clear eligibility criteria, procedural safeguards, and defines the rights and obligations of recognised unions, thereby aiming to foster stable and harmonious industrial relations through effective collective bargaining. The judiciary, through consistent interpretation, has reinforced the sanctity of the statutory procedures, emphasizing strict compliance to maintain the integrity and objectives of the Act. While the Act primarily empowers recognised unions, it also carves out certain avenues for unrecognised unions to represent their members, balancing the need for a single bargaining agent with the fundamental rights of association and representation. The framework, supported by judicial oversight, continues to be pivotal in shaping the dynamics of labour relations in one of India's most industrialized states.

References

  1. See Preamble, Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971; Balmer Lawrie Workers' Union, Bombay And Another v. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. And Others (1984) SCC, (Supreme Court Of India, 1984).
  2. Fashion Production Mazdoor Sabha, Bombay v. Smt. Smita Prabhakar Dalvi And Others (Bombay High Court, 1985).
  3. Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Ashok Vishnu Kate And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 1995).
  4. Balmer Lawrie Workers' Union, Bombay And Another v. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 1984).
  5. Preamble, Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, as quoted in Hindalco Industries Limited v. Association Of Engineering Workers (Supreme Court Of India, 2008).
  6. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Bombay v. Maharashtra Motor Kamgar Federation And Another (Bombay High Court, 1985).
  7. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union v. Mazdoor Congress And Others (Bombay High Court, 1982).
  8. Forbes Forbes Campbell & Co., Ltd. v. Engineering Mazdoor Sabha (1979 SCC 1 14, Supreme Court Of India, 1977).
  9. Shramik Sena, Navi Mumbai v. Blue Star Workers' Union, Mumbai, Blue Star, Ltd., Thane And A.U Purandare, Learned Member, Industrial Court, Thane (Bombay High Court, 2006), citing Automobile Products Of India Employees' Union v. Association Of Engineering Workers, Bombay.
  10. Automobile Products Of India Employees' Union v. Association Of Engineering Workers, Bombay And Others (1990 SCC 2 444, Supreme Court Of India, 1990).
  11. Association Of Chemical Workers v. S.D Rane And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 1996).
  12. Ram Naresh Tripati v. S.D Hane And Others (1991 SCC ONLINE BOM 248, Bombay High Court, 1991).
  13. Cresent Dyes and Chemicals, Ltd. v. Ram Naresh Tripathi [1993 (1) L.L.N 761], as cited in Chairman And Managing Director, Hindustan Teleprinters, Ltd., Chennai v. M. Rajan Isaac (Madras High Court, 2005).
  14. M/S PRABHAT DAIRY LTD. AND ORS v. KONKAN SHRAMIK SANGH THROUGH GEN. SECRETARY (Bombay High Court, 2018).
  15. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation And Another v. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana (2009 SCC L&S 2 513, Supreme Court Of India, 2009).
  16. Vividh Kamgar Sabha v. Kalyani Steels Ltd. And Another (2001 SCC 2 381, Supreme Court Of India, 2001).
  17. General Labour Union (Red Flag), Bombay v. Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Printing Co. Ltd. And Others (1995 SCC SUPP 1 175, Supreme Court Of India, 1993).
  18. General Labour Union (Red Flag) Bombay v. B.V Chavan And Others (1985 SCC 1 312, Supreme Court Of India, 1984).
  19. Item 1(f) of Schedule IV, MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, discussed in Chidambaram Shipcare Pvt. Ltd., Rep. By Managing Director v. The Presiding Officer And M. Baskar (Madras High Court, 2011) referencing Ram Naresh Tripati v. S.D. Rane and Ors. 1992 (II) LLJ 519.